[ppml] APNIC policy proposal to create a regulated market inIPv4 addresses

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Aug 6 18:36:27 EDT 2007

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Owen DeLong
>Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:59 AM
>To: David Williamson
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] APNIC policy proposal to create a regulated market
>inIPv4 addresses
>Thus spake dlw at tellme.com:
>> A great idea, but won't they put more value on swamp class C networks?
>> I can't think of a better way to drive value for a black/white market
>> in ip space than to differentiate some of it.
>I fear that if we do not get a good portion of the legacy holders
>into some form
>of RSA with ARIN, such a black market in swamp space is an inevitable

As swamp space is only IPv4, and IPv4 will eventually die sooner or
later, this black market will end up being nothing more than an interesting
historical footnote.  Much like the profiteering during the US Civil
War, a bunch of people made a bunch of money on a market that doesen't
exist now, and nobody cares anymore.

>Further, I think you will see varying policies by ISPs towards
>blocking large
>portions of swamp space just because they can't reliably predict what
>is or
>isn't a valid address there.

And the swamp space holders can renumber into IPv6 and why is this
a problem...?

>Despite comments from the detractors who think that I am (pick one):
>	1.	A legacy apologist (whatever that means)
>	2.	Out to inflict ARIN evil on legacy address holders
>(goes well
>			with the first one, doesn't it?)
>	3.	Trying to back-door permanent status for address squatters

ding ding ding!  Seriously, I'm perfectly willing for you to have
permanent status for your IPv4 address squatters.  Since the squatters are
only squatting on IPv4 that is just one more nail in the IPv4 coffin.

>	4.	Trying to undermine ARINs ability to deal with the
>legacy issue
>My real motivation, actually, is to try and create good policy which is
>fair and balanced, but, allows legacy address holders and ARIN to
>come to a mutual understanding which allows ARIN to provide good
>solid registration services to legacy holders in a manner that is
>not punitive to ARIN, legacy holders, or the ARIN membership.

ARIN is already providing good solid registration services to IPv4
legacy holders.  What, pray tell, is deficit?

Do you want the ability for legacy holders to sell IPv4?  OK not
a problem - the purchaser will of course have to sign an RSA and
start paying fees to the RIR for the registration to be changed so
it's not any real difference than if the purchaser got the IPv4 numbering
from the RIR in the first place.  If the purchaser cannot show justification
to ARIN for the block they bought, then as they say, they just bought
a pig-in-a-poke.  It's like buying a car with a missing title - you
may have the actual car and can even drive it around and use it,
but if you get pulled over you get a ticket for no registration.
Similarly, if a legacy holder "sells" a block to someone who cannot
provide ARIN justification, and thus cannot sign an RSA, the
purchaster may find themselves blocked by the various netcops.

>I firmly support efforts towards outreach to legacy holders.
>I am willing to accept that legacy holders are less likely to agree to
>annual fees, but, I think that agreeing to an annual contact
>refresh might be acceptable to most.  As such, I support and will
>continue to support policy that enables that.

I don't.  The community has determined the legacy holders are getting
their IPv4 for free.  Until there is the will to change this,
there is no point in having the legacy holders do anything other
than keeping their contact info current.

>I believe that legacy holders view some of the revocation and
>open-ended modification at any time without notice provisions
>of the RSA as a threat and a detriment compared to their existing

Probably.  But since they have to accept these clauses to get
any IPv6, I don't see the issue here...

  As such, I believe it is to the benefit of the ARIN
>community to be able to identify legacy holders reliably and
>maintain contact with them on a regular basis such that
>defunct address registrations can be reclaimed and removed
>from whois to prevent hijacking and abuse.  Therefore, I support
>the idea of an ARIN RSA for legacy holders which preserves their
>current status to whatever extent is feasible, but, at least requires
>annual contact refresh with ARIN and provides mecahnisms for
>ARIN to reliably determine if the addresses are no longer needed.

It's much simpler to simply have ARIN attempt to
contact the legacy holder addresses that the legacy holders have
submitted, and if the address is old and bogus, then revoke the block.

The entire reason for the contact info being current is so that members
of the community can contact the IP block holder if there is a problem.
Thus if the published contact info isn't good enough to do this, then
the legacy holder shouldn't have the block assigned any longer.  If it
is good enough for the community to contact the legacy holder, it's good
enough for ARIN to contact the legacy holder.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list